Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

You shouldn't respect them. As an agnostic, deist, theist you should instead curse them to an eternity in whatever place that agnostic, deist, theists believe that the filthy, soulless atheists deserve to go when they die.

Wasn't it Jesus who said ? "Sure, morality is nice but this is business."

Well here is the question, do you want to get along with them, have a relationship with them or not, if you do, then you can respect them as people and as family, although you are not obliged to respect their beliefs or opinion in regards to those beliefs. Then if the subject does come up you can either respectfully excuse yourself from the topic or engage in a respectful discussion (you know one that does't turn to insulting the other persons opinion, but merely countering their arguments). If you don't want a relationship, then attack their idea's, beliefs, and opinions full on, don't hold back. Outside of that, it's up to you if you want to respect them or not, not up to us to tell you why you should or shouldn't.

Cpt sometimes feels snarky and parodies other threads to try to make a point. I'm beginning to suspect that it's easier for him to allude to points rather than actually make them. It remains to be seen whether that's from ego or a simple lack of ability to articulate the point to himself.

Perhaps that's behind agnostic deist theism? When you can't figure out any point to make to anyone, including yourself, you're trapped in intellectual limbo for fear of giving away your dilemma...

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

As persons? Why wouldn't you? All persons are entitled to dignity by virtue of their humanity.

Their views? You're not required to. While they have the freedom to be wrong, they have no right to expect you to endorse their wrong thinking.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II

Exactly. I have especially been an admirer of the human dignity expressed by serial killers, child molesters, animal abusers, etc because despite their habitual acts of depravity their inate dignity always shines through....because of, you know, ....their humanity.

So, how many of your parents and siblings are serial killers, child molesters, and animal abusers?

I never claimed that the innate dignity of humanity was easy to discern. This as a facet of Christian living that renders Christainaity a challenging lifestyle.

And Christianity is not alone in this respect. Just check out KevinRBrown's gushing praise for Stalin in his thread, many of which he views as a positive good. I, on the other hand, can recognize the humanity of Stalin ddepsite the positive evils I see he perpetrated.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II

So, how many of your parents and siblings are serial killers, child molesters, and animal abusers?

What would it matter ? The scope of humanity isn't limited to my parents and siblings.

Every human sociopath who ever walked the Earth began their lives as their mother's child and are thus someones's family member. Some of these degenerates grow up, marry and have families of their own ( like the BTK killer for example, who behaved normally and even attended a Christian church. )

Accordingly, I am not impressed merely by anyone's humanity nor is dignity a universally shared trait.

Wasn't it Jesus who said ? "Sure, morality is nice but this is business."

we are all related and therefor respect is earned not inherint so if your bro is the atheist mechanic that saves your bacon respect his mechanic skills but realize that he has diffrent veiws than you therefore do not bend him but bend yourself for bending him is impossable this is what i do with my theist relatives

What would it matter ? The scope of humanity isn't limited to my parents and siblings.

It was a poor attempt at a joke. My apologies.

Quote:

Every human sociopath who ever walked the Earth began their lives as their mother's child and are thus someones's family member. Some of these degenerates grow up, marry and have families of their own ( like the BTK killer for example, who behaved normally and even attended a Christian church. )

Indeed. And even these whack jobs are entitled to equal protection under the law. That's a concept originating in western governments developing out of a Christian belief in the equality of all men before God. The concept is best summed uo in the US Decaration of Independence assertion that "all Men are created equal".

Quote:

Accordingly, I am not impressed merely by anyone's humanity nor is dignity a universally shared trait.

This concept is the basis of the form of government we call "democracy". But with the recognition of the rights conferred by the dignity of the individual person comes obligations as well. Primarily those obligations amount to recognizing the fundamental dignity others. It's a reciprocal realationship upon which our society is based. Government, and the society which that government represents, is meant to enforce that equality. Those great thinkers who were instrumental in the development of modern representative government were obviously pretty impressed by the humanity of the person and seemed to think human dignity a universally shared trait.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II

Indeed. And even these whack jobs are entitled to equal protection under the law. That's a concept originating in western governments developing out of a Christian belief in the equality of all men before God. The concept is best summed uo in the US Decaration of Independence assertion that "all Men are created equal".

Noble principles indeed. Unfortunately they do not match up to reality. This high minded democracy with its religiously inspired creed that "all men are created equal" would come as a shock to the thousands of African slaves who were legally kidnapped from their native lands and then sold to any American citizen who could afford to buy them.

George Washington, the first president of this allegedly Christian nation, was a slave owner.

Even the framers of the Declaration who professed that "all men are created equal" were themselves slave owners.

Until the passage of the 13'th Amendment institutional slavery in America was the rule, ....not the exception.

This Christian-based democracy with it's famous Constitution was nevertheless responsible for the brutal conquest of the Native American tribes in which their ancestral lands were simply stripped away from them. Forces of the US military were employed against them to ensure compliance. Those who refused became the targets of deadly force ( which would later evolve into full blown wars of extermination. )

The Indians, whose numbers were severely reduced through the deliberate depletion of their *food supply ( ie, the *American bison ) foreign diseases and military battles, were finally broken down and forced to surrender.

It seems that our fore fathers failed to properly elucidate their actual meaning when stating that all men are created equal. Apparently that principle of equality was actually restricted to white skinned Christians only.

Wasn't it Jesus who said ? "Sure, morality is nice but this is business."

Noble principles indeed. Unfortunately they do not match up to reality.

I agree with your entire post. High minded and very difficult to live by, both then and now. We've improved in some areas, fallen down in others, but I think the attempt to live by these ideals has always survived.

Equality under the law is indeed not the actuality, I doubt it ever will be, but I think, as in most other human endeavors, it's about progress not perfection.

From your last post, and your comment that you refuse to acknowledge the fundamental dignity of all men, am I correct in assuming that you think we should abandon this ideal altogether because it is difficult? Perhaps establish a new aristocracy, or an oligarchy of some sort. Perhaps since we are unable to guarantee free franchise to every man, we should abolish the franchise altogether.

Or do you think the more noble course would be to continue the pursuit of excellence despite the difficulties in this case?

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II

He is adamant in his beliefs. He has no interest in opening his mind or listening to reason and hence is not amenable to change. He is hateful and comfortable being ignorant. I often criticize his beliefs. His blind hatred leads him to lie to himself. This dishonesty insulates him from criticism, so often I resort to ridicule.

I don't respect him.

I'm not certain if he has personally hurt or would ever hurt another human being over his beliefs, although I suspect he would.

He gives at least tacit support to the world view of those who seek to further hate, discrimination, ignorance and exclusion. He agrees with those who use violence to further this hate. He cannot adequately defend his beliefs.

He is still a human being.

I respect his right to live, absent one's personal defense. I cannot envision respecting him.

Because his beliefs are not "socially acceptable" I do not imagine there are too many who will disagree with me. If on the other hand, these beliefs were considered acceptable, my lack of respect would most likely be considered intolerant or extreme.

While his theism may add fuel to the negative traits I see in him, he wouldn't be any closer to earning my respect, if he rejected theology altogether.

There are some persons who while I have little to no respect for their beliefs, I still respect them. There are others for whom I respect neither.

Beliefs...(alot like people) should be respected or not...based on their own merit.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell

I was looking through this thread and realized that both my parents and my brother are atheist.

So why should I respect them?

I can't and wouldn't anyway speak for Jackal, but most comments of that nature refer to respecting the beliefs of a person, and not the actual person. You need to figure out whether or not your family deserves your respect and why.

btw, What's a agnostic deist theist? Is that someone who believes in divine creation by an unknown apathetic non-god god?

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?

Noble principles indeed. Unfortunately they do not match up to reality.

From your last post, and your comment that you refuse to acknowledge the fundamental dignity of all men, am I correct in assuming that you think we should abandon this ideal altogether because it is difficult? Perhaps establish a new aristocracy, or an oligarchy of some sort. Perhaps since we are unable to guarantee free franchise to every man, we should abolish the franchise altogether.

Or do you think the more noble course would be to continue the pursuit of excellence despite the difficulties in this case?

I believe, quite frankly, that all men should be judged on a purely individual basis and not collectively. I consider that to be an expression of logic, not malice. Humans undeniably share common characteristics but dignity is a reflection of personal choices...humans who possess dignity do so based upon their actions as individuals.

Also, being a member of the aristocracy, oligarchy, etc is utterly meaningless in this regard and does not reflect any statements that I have made. Paris Hilton would certainly qualify as belonging to that socially elite crowd and yet, based upon her chosen lifestyle, she possesses no dignity.

Wasn't it Jesus who said ? "Sure, morality is nice but this is business."

I was looking through this thread and realized that both my parents and my brother are atheist.

So why should I respect them?

If you love them then you should show them respect based solely on familial love and all the issues and areas of knowledge and understanding about which you do agree and about which you do respect thier opinions and acknowledge thier knowledge and intelligence on. If they respect you then reciprocation of that respect is neccessary to the relationship if you want that relationship to stay strong. If you don't give a fuck about them then fuck 'em. I respect my theists friends even though I think their religion is idiotic and often snicker when they talk about thier "personal relationship with God". I may not respect their religious beliefs and that does, admittedly, lessen my respect for them to the degree that thier religious beliefs affect thier judgement in other areas. I don't, for example, ask my mother's opinion on anything political because i know i will get some close-minded Xtian answer followed by a quote from the bible. But i would ask for her advice on potty-training my daughter or on sewing or gardening or investing in the stock market. And I have many friends who never think about religion outside of church but still consider themselves Xtians and my respect for them is pretty much the same as it would be for anyone. Just because I can't take their religious beliefs seriously that doesn't mean i won't respect their opinions in other areas not influenced by their imaginary friend.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize-winning physicist

I was looking through this thread and realized that both my parents and my brother are atheist.

So why should I respect them?

Is this a trick question? By that I mean, is this blurring the line between respecting someone and respecting their beliefs? In my humble opinion you should respect them as they're your family. Their beliefs on the other hand should only be respected if you think they're thought through, rational and valid.

I respect my family. I have no respect for my parents beliefs in regards to the supernatural. My parents are quite old though so I'm not comfortable coming to a head with them in regards to said beliefs. I'd prefer to keep the family unity there and cause no controversy in this particular case.

I was looking through this thread and realized that both my parents and my brother are atheist.

So why should I respect them?

You shouldn't. You should respect no-one by default. Individuals deserve only denigration and condescension. They should have to earn your respect, preferably by either besting you in hand-to-hand combat (or with Samurai swords, natch), or perhaps by beating you 2 out of 3 in Marvel Super Hero. "Where's Waldo?" usually won't suffice as a test of their mettle, but it might do in a pinch.

Or, they can take the easy way, and purchase respect with offerings of food, money, and alchoholic beverages.

Otherwise: NO RESPECT FOR THE CURS!

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers

I believe, quite frankly, that all men should be judged on a purely individual basis and not collectively. I consider that to be an expression of logic, not malice. Humans undeniably share common characteristics but dignity is a reflection of personal choices...humans who possess dignity do so based upon their actions as individuals.

Actually, we agree here somewhat. Dignity implies obligations, as well as rights. When one fails to live up to one's obligations, then one's rights are restricted. Until that demonstration of the inability of a person to live up to their obligations, however, the default must be to grant them those rights to which human dignity entitles them.

Further, those who are, for some reason, unable to realize their obligations must, to some extent, be extended the rights accorded to all others. We who are capable of attaing to our obligations are responsible for seeing that they are accorded the opportunity to do the same to the best of their abilities.

Be careful now. You're coming very close to acknowledging the concept of free will here. The acceptance or rejection of the obligations imposed by our common humanity is indeed a choice we make.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II

I believe, quite frankly, that all men should be judged on a purely individual basis and not collectively. I consider that to be an expression of logic, not malice. Humans undeniably share common characteristics but dignity is a reflection of personal choices...humans who possess dignity do so based upon their actions as individuals.

Actually, we agree here somewhat. Dignity implies obligations, as well as rights. When one fails to live up to one's obligations, then one's rights are restricted. Until that demonstration of the inability of a person to live up to their obligations, however, the default must be to grant them those rights to which human dignity entitles them.

Further, those who are, for some reason, unable to realize their obligations must, to some extent, be extended the rights accorded to all others. We who are capable of attaing to our obligations are responsible for seeing that they are accorded the opportunity to do the same to the best of their abilities.

Be careful now. You're coming very close to acknowledging the concept of free will here. The acceptance or rejection of the obligations imposed by our common humanity is indeed a choice we make.

I believe that dignity, like wisdom, is an acquired trait. It's as simple as that...not something that we are born with.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting you but you seemed to repeatedly characterize my argument as if I advocated some degrading, dehumanizing philosophy where humans are treated as if they are animals without rights. I advocate no such ideas.

Wasn't it Jesus who said ? "Sure, morality is nice but this is business."

Perhaps I am misinterpreting you but you seemed to repeatedly characterize my argument as if I advocated some degrading, dehumanizing philosophy where humans are treated as if they are animals without rights. I advocate no such ideas.

Yeah, he's NOT a christian.

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.

I was looking through this thread and realized that both my parents and my brother are atheist.

So why should I respect them?

If you are basing that comment on the OP in that thread, if they are indeed "completely uncritical when forming (their) beliefs."?, then maybe you shouldn't. Otherwise, there is no particular reason not to respect them.

The OP in that thread did NOT suggest not respecting someone simply because they had different beliefs from yourself, which is what your unqualified question here seems to imply.

By not discussing your parents' personal justifications for their atheism, you have misrepresented (or maybe misunderstood) the point of that other thread - it was not based simply difference of belief, it was based on the perceived lack of coherent justification for the belief, and how to approach people who don't seem to be able to discuss the subject in a reasonable way.

So, apart from the age of that thread, it is hardly surprising you have not heard from others on that thread, since your question here is not really relevant to the OP in that thread.

In the spirit of that other thread, it depends on why they do not believe in God(s) - if they present a reasoned argument as to why they see no justification for belief, why not respect that? And please note, it's not normally a matter of 'choice' to be an atheist, the only choice involved is the 'choice' to only accept things which are well supported by evidence, to not just accept what others tell you you should believe.

If they are still prepared to be friendly and reasonable to you, then it would be pretty sad if you couldn't return the favour - people in families disagree about many things, it doesn't have to stop them treating each other with basic human respect.

If you can't find it in you to respect their conclusions about the existence of God, after they have explained why, then that's your problem.

I believe that dignity, like wisdom, is an acquired trait. It's as simple as that...not something that we are born with.

I disagree vehemently. Your view excludes whole swaths of the population, specifically those who, either by age, or physical or mental restrictions are incapable of "acquiring" dignity, or those who for some reason lose their mental or physical capabilites and are unable to "demonstrate" dignity.

Further, this concept flies directly contrary to the best known delarations of human rights to come out of the western tradition of democracy. British Common Law, the US Declaration of Independence, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man all recognize the equal rights of "all" men.

Again, I am perfectly willing to concede the point that these philosophies have been practiced by those respective governments imperfectly, but all human endeavors are prone to such vices. Imperfect practice does not invalidate the ideal.

Quote:

Perhaps I am misinterpreting you but you seemed to repeatedly characterize my argument as if I advocated some degrading, dehumanizing philosophy where humans are treated as if they are animals without rights. I advocate no such ideas.

I don't think you're misinterpreting me at all. Unless one views all men as possessed of a fundamental dignity as human beings, it inevitably leads to the degradation, if not the outright revocation of basic human rights. It is inevitable.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II

Using the word 'dignity' to argue for the basic default respect we feel we should accord to every human being is the problem I see here. I do not see it as an appropriate word to use here, but if you do, you should make it clear this is something different from its usage to describe an aspect of a certain type of personality.

In normal usage, 'dignity' describes a quality that some people display more than others, otherwise the word is meaningless.

I believe that dignity, like wisdom, is an acquired trait. It's as simple as that...not something that we are born with.

I disagree vehemently. Your view excludes whole swaths of the population, specifically those who, either by age, or physical or mental restrictions are incapable of "acquiring" dignity, or those who for some reason lose their mental or physical capabilites and are unable to "demonstrate" dignity.

Further, this concept flies directly contrary to the best known delarations of human rights to come out of the western tradition of democracy. British Common Law, the US Declaration of Independence, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man all recognize the equal rights of "all" men.

Again, I am perfectly willing to concede the point that these philosophies have been practiced by those respective governments imperfectly, but all human endeavors are prone to such vices. Imperfect practice does not invalidate the ideal.

Quote:

Perhaps I am misinterpreting you but you seemed to repeatedly characterize my argument as if I advocated some degrading, dehumanizing philosophy where humans are treated as if they are animals without rights. I advocate no such ideas.

I don't think you're misinterpreting me at all. Unless one views all men as possessed of a fundamental dignity as human beings, it inevitably leads to the degradation, if not the outright revocation of basic human rights. It is inevitable.

Sorry totus, I had forgotten that theists frequently have completely different definitions of words when compared with their common, daily usage.

In fact, I finally abandoned a thread regarding what actually constitutes a miracle because a theist named razorphreak broadened the definition of a miracle so much that the concept lost all meaning.

Kind of like when a Christian fundamentalist says the Bible is "inerrant".....but that's a whole 'nother debate and after a 10 hour work day I'm too tired to bother arguing definitions with dogmatic Christians who vehemently disagree with me.

Maybe later.

Wasn't it Jesus who said ? "Sure, morality is nice but this is business."

I was looking through this thread and realized that both my parents and my brother are atheist.

So why should I respect them?

That whole question is a little ridiculous isn't it? It presupposes that one must be of the same religious background to gain respect. That idea is preposterous! I am a rather outspoken if not the only really outspoken atheist in my community (I live in a rather small town near the Bible belt.) or at least I like to consider myself as much, and i have respect for many Christians, and also have gained much respect from them. Respect does not have to stem from religion. (though it may help.) If you think your relatives are good people and are worth being respected then thats why you respect them not cause of some religious belief. Hell i know several Christians who are worth less respect than I'd give to a dog, same on the atheist side. Someones religion or lack thereof does not make them a better or worse person and should not make them more or less respectable in your eyes.

As we look at the wonders in this world man ponders where did they come from, and when knowledge of that is gained man ponders what set the processes into motion.

Its easy to see how god was a quick solution to both these problems. But now as we gain more knowledge and come closer still to answering the unknown let us look to science, and cast off childish beliefs in a creator. For if everything needs a creator who created him.

I'd like to flip that around why should they respect your decision to be w.e religious group you are.You probably would say you don't need it to be respected because its your life choice. That's just it! Its a life choice if they truly look at the world and the evidence and conclude there is no god that is their decision. Why should it matter if you respect their decision or not? they are not looking for your respect just as you should not be looking for theirs. (On the decision of religion at least.) If anything you should preach against their decision as your belief most likely winds up with them being in a hell of sorts, and you don't want them to go there. So why should you respect their decision? There is no reason you should. If you wish to respect them for having the courage not to be closet atheist and be open on their beliefs then that's your choice, but there is no plausible reason to respect them for that decision, or vice versa not respect them for it.

As we look at the wonders in this world man ponders where did they come from, and when knowledge of that is gained man ponders what set the processes into motion.

Its easy to see how god was a quick solution to both these problems. But now as we gain more knowledge and come closer still to answering the unknown let us look to science, and cast off childish beliefs in a creator. For if everything needs a creator who created him.